Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

David Sloan Wilson: Evolutionary Psychology and the Public Media: Rekindling the Romance Top
Evolutionary psychology, once the darling of the public media, has been dumped in a recent Newsweek article by journalist Sharon Begley . Return accusations are beginning to fly from evolutionary psychologists, who accuse Begley of willful distortions and scientific incompetence (e.g., 1 , 2 ). As usual for romantic quarrels, there are legitimate grievances on both sides that get lost in a hail of recriminations. I have always had a love-hate relationship with the school of thought that most people associate with the term "evolutionary psychology". When it appeared in the late 1980's, it made some great points but also got other things profoundly wrong. Begley's article made some cheap shots but it also made some fair shots about evolutionary psychology that need to be acknowledged. As for the public media, covering science must be one of the toughest journalistic assignments. First, one must understand the nature of the scientific process in general terms. Then, one must master the specific topic that is being reported. Finally, one must convey what is genuinely newsworthy to a general audience--the fair shots--while avoiding the cheap shots that get people's attention but become part of the problem in the long run. Judged by these standards, the Newsweek article scores rather low. Here are some issues that need to be resolved to get the romance between evolutionary psychology and the public media back on the right track. Take back the terms! Terms such as "sociobiology" and "evolutionary psychology" have straightforward meanings: Sociobiology is the study of social behavior from an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary psychology is the study of psychology from an evolutionary perspective. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for these terms to become associated with particular schools of thought and endorsed or avoided accordingly. Thus, the study of social behavior from an evolutionary perspective has never been more active, but the term "sociobiology" is avoided because of the controversy surrounding the publication of E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology in 1975. The study of psychology from an evolutionary perspective has never been more vigorous or rigorous, but the term "evolutionary psychology" is avoided by those who disagree with the particular school of thought that arose in the late 1980's. It is a natural human tendency (innate, even?) to avoid being stigmatized. We understand when someone conceals their relationship with an ancestor who committed a heinous crime, but scientific inquiry must strive for higher standards. I therefore propose the slogan "Take back the terms!" to restore terms such as "Sociobiology" and "Evolutionary Psychology" to their proper broad definitions. David Buller , for example, who is featured prominently in the Newsweek article as a critic of evolutionary psychology, is happy to call himself an evolutionary psychologist writ large; his book Adapting Minds (2006) merely takes issue with the claims that were advanced by an influential book published in 1992 titled The Adapted Mind . For more on this topic, I recommend an edited book titled Evolutionary Psychology: Alternative Approaches (2002), which includes a chapter by myself titled "Evolution, Morality, and Human Potential" . The difference between behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology : According to Begley, "evolutionary psychology" is being replaced by another field called "behavioral ecology." Actually, behavioral ecology came first and there is an important distinction that continues to be highly relevant. Everything that evolves requires two explanations, one based on survival and reproduction (ultimate causation) and one based on the mechanisms that cause individuals to behave in a mechanistic sense (proximate causation). Prior to the 1990s, behavioral ecologists studying all species tended to rely excessively on ultimate causation--predicting how organisms should behave to maximize fitness in their current environment--while largely ignoring proximate mechanisms. The first people to use the term evolutionary psychology criticized this position, arguing that organisms do not directly perceive and maximize biological fitness. Instead, they are directly motivated by such things as hunger, desire for status, desire for sex, avoidance of danger, and caring for one's young, which reliably increased biological fitness in the past. Furthermore, proximate mechanisms that work well in the "Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness" (EEA) can go spectacularly wrong in a different environment. No one expects a lizard species that evolved in the rain forest to behave appropriately in the desert. Similarly we can't necessarily expect our genetically evolved adaptations to work well in modern environments. These points are as relevant today as they were back then. Where evolutionary psychology went wrong : To proceed with their agenda, evolutionary psychologists needed to identify the actual proximate mechanisms that evolved by genetic evolution to motivate human behavior. Leda Cosmides and John Tooby offered a blueprint for the field that most people associate with the term "evolutionary psychology." It became highly influential but was never the consensus view among the entire community of scientists studying human behavior from an evolutionary perspective. My own critiques began in 1994 with an article titled "Adaptive Genetic Variation and Human Evolutionary Psychology" and continue to the present (see my website for selected examples). Robert Boyd and Peter Richerson offered a very different blueprint in their 1985 book Culture and the Evolutionary Process , which received much less publicity but is now increasingly occupying center stage, as described in their more recent book Not By Genes Alone (2005). How did the blueprint offered by Cosmides and Tooby go wrong? Let me count the ways: 1) They portrayed the mind as a collection of hundreds of special-purpose modules that evolved to solve specific problems in the EEA. 2) Their conception of the EEA was limited to the range of environments occupied by humans during their evolution as a species, which they acknowledged to be diverse. However, it did not stretch back in time to include primate, mammalian and vertebrate adaptations; nor did it stretch forward to include rapid genetic evolution since our hunter-gatherer existence. 3) They emphasized a universal human nature, or rather separate male and female natures, while minimizing the importance of adaptive genetic variation that cuts across both sexes. 4) They dismissed open-ended, domain-general psychological processes as a theoretical impossibility, creating a polarized worldview with "Evolutionary Psychology" at the positive end and "The Standard Social Science Model (SSSM)" at the negative end; 5) Their blueprint had almost nothing to say about culture as an open-ended evolutionary process that can adapt human populations to their current environments. They did not deny the possibility of transmitted culture, but they had almost nothing to say about it. Their most important point was that what seems like transmitted culture can instead be an expression of genetically programmed individual behavioral flexibility (evoked culture). I know the field of evolution in relation to human behavior as well as anyone, including colleagues who identify with the term "evolutionary psychology" and others who avoid the term. By my assessment, a large majority agrees that the claims listed above are in need of serious revision. Some people never agreed with them in the first place. Others began as enthusiasts but have changed their minds--which is a virtue in science. It is important for these changes to be acknowledged by scientists and communicated to the general public as a form of progress, without making it sound as if the field as a whole is on the verge of collapse. Capturing the middle ground : At the most recent annual meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, the first plenary speaker was Joseph Henrich , who obtained his PhD with Robert Boyd and whose address was titled "Culture and the Evolution of Human Sociality". Henrich also spoke about proximate psychological mechanisms that evolved by genetic evolution, not as adaptations to specific adaptive problems, but as adaptations that enable individuals and groups to adapt to their current environments in a rapid and open-ended fashion. For example, a "prestige bias" causes us to grant status to individuals who have something to offer and to use them as role models. A "conformity bias" causes us to copy the most common behavior in the absence of other information. "Strong reciprocity" impels us to uphold norms and punish transgressions, even at our own cost. These are the social equivalents of what B.F. Skinner called "reinforcers", which guide open-ended individual learning. Henrich's talk represents what I regard as the most newsworthy development in the field of evolutionary psychology writ large. The headline should read "Evolutionary Psychology Captures the Middle Ground!" There is something between the Cosmides/Tooby blueprint and the Standard Social Science Model that we are beginning to articulate, which is richly innate and richly open-ended at the same time. What Begley and Newsweek got wrong : So much for the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary psychology. How about the journalistic acumen of Sharon Begley and Newsweek ? I was surprised to learn about the "ashes of sociobiology"--did it burn down? They get some aspects of the Cosmides/Tooby blueprint right but don't distinguish it from evolutionary psychology writ large. They seriously mangle the moral implications of evolutionary psychology. Most behaviors that we call immoral benefit the immoral individual. Why else would anyone be tempted to misbehave? Behaviors count as immoral when they cause harm to others and to society as a whole. Immoral behaviors do not become justified when explained in evolutionary terms, any more than when explained in terms of original sin. The study of morality is one of the most exciting growth areas of evolutionary psychology--someone should write an article about it for Newsweek . Sexual behaviors that benefit one member of the pair at the expense of the other--and even at the expense of the species as a whole--are a fact of nature. Get used to it. Blanket statements to the effect that evolutionary psychology writ large is bad science or intrinsically more difficult than other kinds of science are dumb; I challenge people who make such statements to back them up with hard numbers. Labeling current developments "behavioral ecology" gets the history wrong, as I have already shown. Using the phrase "it depends" as something that distinguishes evolutionary psychology from behavioral ecology is seriously muddled. Whatever else one might criticize about the Cosmides/Tooby blueprint, it is richly sensitive to environmental context. What's new is to accord more significance to open-ended psychological and cultural processes, which amounts to taking back much of what was rejected as part of the SSSM. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson always characterized homicide as the often unintended consequence of human conflict, not as a special-purpose adaptation. Even though children are statistically more at risk from stepparents than from biological parents, the vast majority of step-children are not abused, which has always been clear from the data. It's interesting to read what Begley has to say about the role of the public media in the history of evolutionary psychology. According to her, the media has focused almost exclusively on the narrow version for almost two decades, which remains hugely popular because it addresses hot topics such as sex and violence. By her own account, the media has failed to report on evolutionary psychology writ large --which is by no means a new development--and can't resist pressing the hot psychological buttons of its audience. Regretfully, she continues the tradition by writing her own article in the style of a tabloid exposé. Rekindling the romance : Evolution is here to stay as a theory that can help us understand the human condition, along with the rest of the living world. With understanding comes the capacity for improvement. This is not just an idle intellectual pursuit but has consequences for the solution of real-world problems, so the sooner we can advance our understanding the better. One reason that we are just starting is because the term "evolution" became stigmatized early in the 20th century, in the same way that terms such as "sociobiology" and "evolutionary psychology" tend to become stigmatized today. This problem can be avoided by distinguishing particular schools of thought from the more general theory, so that the former can be accepted or rejected on their own merits without questioning the merits of the latter. In addition, all theories that lead to action in the real world need to be scrutinized for their ethical consequences; there is nothing that distinguishes evolutionary theory from other theories in this regard. Because we are on the steep part of the learning curve, some ideas that seem foundational will end up being rejected. Science is a process of cultural change, not just individual change. Some schools of thought prevail over others, even though individual proponents might go to their graves without changing their minds. Journalists working with popular media outlets will discover much more drama and interest by accurately reporting the issues than by offering their usual fare.
 
Rachel Simmons: What Kind of Girl Power is This? Top
In " The Code of Miss Porter's ," Fair's Evgenia Peretz offers a rare glimpse of life inside America's most exclusive girls' boarding school. It is a story of girls' empowerment, but - at least as this article tells it* -- it is a power premised on hierarchy, hazing, and projecting a ruthlessly "perfect girl" persona at all costs. Head of School Kate Windsor apparently declined to view the behavior of the Oprichinki as bullying. This is unremarkable, as far as many schools go. Girls grow up in a world that largely depicts female aggression as comedy, and euphemizes their cruelty as a "rite of passage," developmental phase or "girls being girls" ("You can't sue a school for girl drama," an '07 alum told VF). What's intriguing is that Windsor seems to have taken it one step further. She suggests that such behavior is appropriate training for life. As she marveled to Peretz, "We create these rites of passage where girls actually get anxious." She actually called the rituals "awesome," exercises that teach girls how to "prepare for the unknown." Taking an approach to psychological aggression that is as outdated as the saddle shoe, Windsor draws the line of intervention at "physical harm." As anyone who has spent a few minutes with upper middle class girls knows, throwing a punch is the last way they'd try to take down a peer. To be sure, Miss Porter's has not ignored bullying. I was an invited speaker there in 2003, and I was enchanted with the headstrong, bright young women, so much so that I hired one of their teachers to work at my summer Girls Leadership Institute. I found then-Head of School Burch Ford to be an exceptionally wise, devoted educator, clearly passionate about girls' leadership and sympathetic to targets of psychological aggression. If her comments to Vanity Fair are to be believed, Ms. Windsor, by contrast, conflates her school's responsibility for dealing with bullying with the current regrettable trends in overparenting and overprotection. This is a dangerous misread. A school's commitment to the social-emotional welfare of its students does not, by definition, gut them of resilience. But if MPS leadership now sees aggression and intimidation as appropriate training for life, it would follow that enduring it as seen as a badge, rather than seeing its existence as an outrage. The antidote to helicopter parenting is not a free-for-all in which only the fittest survive. Teaching girls to be tough can be accomplished in more humane ways, and certainly not at the expense of hurting or beating someone else. Resilience is not about being better than or stronger than; it is something found within the self in response to the daily stresses of life - not stresses that are artificially designed. When the aggressive dynamics of girls become the basis for how young women negotiate the world, a new, disturbing glass ceiling is created. In my new book, The Curse of the Good Girl: Raising Authentic Girls with Courage and Confidence , I trace the migration of girls' social habits into their behavior in classrooms, extracurricular activities and athletic fields. For example, instead of resolving conflicts on sports teams directly, girls often import the silent treatment of their lunch tables onto the field, refusing to pass a teammate the ball when they are angry. Sports fields and classrooms are training grounds for how girls will take on the world as young women. Aggression in the workplace and a willingness to win at any cost become the very behaviors that limit female potential. A school like Miss Porter's is at the forefront of girls' empowerment. Ms. Windsor should not be reinforcing this brand of leadership. If this were a story about boys, we'd call the "rituals designed to produce anxiety and intimidate" hazing, pure and simple. Because we're talking about girls, the toughness Windsor is promoting falls under the ever-expanding umbrella of "girl power." The Oprichinki, according to an '07 Ancient, "don't inflict real pain, just the anticipatory fear of pain." That's not skill building or skin thickening. It's bullying. * Admittedly, drawing conclusions about Miss Porter's from a magazine article feels like writing a movie review without seeing the movie.
 
Robert Rave: Go Tweet Yourself Top
Jon & Kate's alleged troubled marriage may make me break out in hives, and I want to stick pins in my eyes watching Spencer and Heidi. But if Kate hurled a copy of my new book, SPIN , or Heidi put the book next to her Bible on the nightstand - my sales would go through the proverbial roof. Like it or not, the celebrity "blessing" is the culture we've created, and it's reaching epic proportions. Despite having been a publicist - thus armed with the knowledge that the majority of today's trends are manufactured by hardworking spin-doctors and marketing gurus - I still fall victim to the same PR traps as everyone else. Case in point: I needed to find a place to tame my uni-brow in Los Angeles. Of course I couldn't go just anywhere to get my eye shrub trimmed. After doing some research I settled on the lovely day spa that counted Ricky Martin, Jessica Alba, and Renee Zellweger as clients. There were other salons that would have done an equally first-rate job - but like so many others I put my blind faith in these A-listers. This is precisely why salons, restaurants and nightclubs pay top dollar to their publicists. The equation, sadly, is pretty simple: get a celebrity, get business. I knew all too well that this was precisely the formula I needed to sell my first novel, SPIN . It's dark, edgy and some might argue a bit controversial - but without any celebrity endorsement or attachment, it will get about the same amount of media attention as a book on mathematics. Our obsession with celebrity-dom has crossed over from the pages of Page Six and Us Weekly into the social networking stratosphere - landing smack dab in the middle of Twitter. Instead of obsessing over where Gwyneth goes for a macrobiotic meal or where Lindsay partied till the wee hours of the morning, we've now become more interested in celebrities' Twitter habits. Will bloggers soon write that Samantha Ronson and Sarah Silverman tweet each other about holding in their pee? Or that Elizabeth Taylor and Kathy Ireland are twitter pals? It's uncharted publicity territory, so I'm not sure. But if they do I want to be in the mix. So I signed up for a Twitter account and immediately began to follow celebs like Ashton "@aplusk" Kutcher, Mrs. Kutcher and Oprah. But simply following these celebrities wasn't enough. I had to get at least one of them to follow me - for a coveted endorsement. The whole plan reeked of a Paris Hilton publicity stunt. But like Paris and other great media manipulators before her, I trudged on in my quest to be a member of the "twitteratti" to increase book sales. Sound shallow? Absolutely. But before judging, consider this: Ashton Kutcher beat CNN in a contest to reach one million Twitter followers. He comes off as incredibly likable, spiritual and smart all in under a hundred and forty characters. Suck on that media giants. I knew I needed something funny and attention grabbing to grab the attention of my new celeb "friends". I said to myself, and my two French Bulldogs sitting at my feet: "Piece of cake. One hundred and forty characters. No problem." I stared at the @RobertRave window with great excitement. Finally my very own forum to express what's on my mind at all hours of the day. I was my own CNN, breaking news about my life twenty-four seven. Fast forward to hours later. And to a blank twitter box. If I was going to get celeb endorsements, er, followers before the release of my novel, I needed backup. I called one of my best friends, MTV News correspondent/ Producer/ Documentarian/Girl About Town, SuChin Pak. (Please note my obvious name drop - now will you order my book?) "Can you tell me what to write in my twitter box?" I asked. "No," she said. And like a five year-old I whined, "But why?" "Because that space is for your thoughts, not mine," she argued. "What kind of friend are you?" SuChin ignored my tantrum and quickly changed the subject to something uninteresting like Obama's financial reform or the crisis in Iran. "Could you repeat that last part?" I asked. And she did. "Okay, now slower," I said. "Are you typing as I'm talking?" she asked, sounding utterly disgusted. "What? Uh, no," I said. There was a long pause and then finally she said, matter-of-fact, "And now you're deleting it to cover it up." After apologizing to SuChin for blatantly trying to trade on her celebrity for book sales I asked: "You're friends with Benji and Joel Madden, right?" "Yes, why?" SuChin asked. "I'm just saying that maybe you could ask them to follow me and... Hello? SuChin? Hello?" Could you blame me? I needed to sell books. All my creative energy had been exhausted trying to win at least one celebrity follower. I was certain that this celebrity follower would then buy my book, fall in love with it, and tweet about it. This is why, of course, I work alone and should be heavily medicated. So here I am at 35 years old staring at my Twitter page, trying to get validation from celebritwits half my age. I've worked countless hours writing and re-writing SPIN . I've poured over marketing plans, developed pitches and called every media contact that I've ever met. Yet still, I'm waiting for @MileyCyrus to follow me on Twitter - all in the name of publicity. More on Jon & Kate Plus 8
 
Tom Vander Ark: Dropouts: Attitudes and Antidotes Top
I have to admit that I didn't fully appreciate the dropout crisis while a serving as a public school superintendent. While budgeting for my third year, I recall asking why there were fewer students in each class from 9 to 12--the drop off seemed to be higher than the publicly reported 93% (which turned out to be the percentage of seniors that received diplomas). It didn't really hit me until a few years later when my daughter's class graduated and only 400 of the class of 600 were there that day. I remember counting names in the program, doing the math, and spending the next 90 minutes wondering where the other 200 young people were. That moment, where drop out math became real and personal, resulted in spending the next 10 years working on the problem. Graduation rates are hard to calculate but we know that about half of low income and minority students fail to graduate. The causes are complicated. Perhaps most foundational are our attitudes about and aspirations for young people. On the Front Lines of Schools, a report by Civic Enterprises, explores attitudes of teachers and principals in regards to the drop out crisis in America. Here's the most disturbing finding: "Less than one-third of teachers (32 percent) believed we should expect all students to meet high academic standards, graduate with the skills to do college-level work, and provide extra support to struggling students to help them meet those standards." "Only 20 percent of teachers and 21 percent of principals felt boredom was a factor in most cases of high school dropout. " After visiting hundreds of high schools, I think about 95% are boring--just measure the energy level in the hallway versus classroom. We've succeeded in making learning boring. "Less than one-third of teachers believe that schools should expect all students to meet high academic standards, graduate with the skills to do college-level work, and provide extra support to struggling students to help them meet those standards. "All students college ready' is admittedly a tall order but without the expectation that all kids should at least be able to pass a community college placement exam and start earning credit with out remediation, young people are virtually shut out of family wage employment. "Eighty-one percent of teachers and 89 percent of principals felt their school was doing a good or excellent job." If we take seriously the task of preparing young people for the world they will inherit, the real number is probably 20% good or excellent (and not much higher in the private schools). Here's the one where I agree with teachers, "Sixty-one percent of teachers and 45 percent of principals felt lack of support at home was a factor in most cases of students' dropping out." No question that this crisis is a complicated mixture of culture and delivery. I'm not blaming historically underserved neighborhoods--just recognizing that a culture of college-bound expectations makes it far easier for schools to deliver results. Here's three people attacking the drop out crisis with some success: • Bill Milliken, founder of Communities in Schools, the nation's largest dropout prevention network. Read Bill's book The Last Dropout for the full story. • Dennis Littky and Elliott Washor co-founded Big Picture Learning, a global network of 70 personalized urban schools with a 92% graduation rate. They also lead the development of the Alternative High School Initiative, a group of 12 youth development organizations creating schools for the least well served students in America. • John Murray runs AdvancePath Academics, a network of academies that help over aged/under credited students catch up and graduate on time. John is also past chair of the National Dropout Prevention Network. It's a complicated problem, but it comes down to people that care enough to do something about it. And these guys are changing lives.
 
Sophia A. Nelson: Sex, Lies, and Argentina: Gov. Sanford Should Not Resign from Public Service and Here's Why Top
Okay so who among us was really surprised today to hear Gov. Sanford finally admit that he had been engaged in an adulterous liaison with a woman that by his account "he had real feelings for" and who is a "dear, dear friend"? I for one, was not. I worked on the House GROC Committee when then Rep. Sanford was a Member of Congress in the Republican Majority. I got to know him fairly well and I liked him. I think he had and still has a bright future in politics. The irony, however, is that while I do not approve of how he handled himself as an elected public official or as a husband, I am empathetic to him and understanding of his frailty as fellow human being. I think we all should be and here is why: I have been there. And so have many of you. Particularly some of those of you in the media, who I personally know are some of the worst drinkers, adulterers, and worse. I find the hypocrisy of public life now to be simply ridiculous. When will we all wise up, particularly those who have deemed themselves to be the sanctimonious moral police--only to see this happen time and time again. Speaker Gingrich, President Clinton, Senator Ensign, Senator Vitter, Congressman Livingston, Congressman Burton, Congressman Foley, Senator "foot tap" Craig, Gov. Spitzer, and now Gov. Sanford. Folks, if we are all honest many of us have been at the same moral crossroads--maybe it wasn't adultery--maybe it was something else. Maybe you were going through a rough patch, coming out of a bad relationship, maybe you had an addiction, or found yourself in the midst of a life storm that you could not quite weather. Maybe you lost your faith, and in that period found someone who was an "island" to your soul--someone who for a moment became your sanctuary. Right or wrong folks it happens because we are but dust. I know because as I mentioned; I have been there. The greatest personal failing of my life, became my greatest strength and in the abyss I found myself. It's all about choices and how we choose to respond to sin or failings that determines who we will ultimately be in life. Maybe you didn't cross the line as did Sanford or maybe you did, but as I listened to Sanford make his remarks and look visibly shaken at the damage he had done to his wife and children my heart broke for him, as well as for his family. I also felt for the "other woman" involved because at the end of the day folks if the governor is being truthful, he and this woman started out as friends and that friendship turned into a "spark" and from there they did what many before them and many after them do--they threw good sense and morality out the door. For a moment it was just those two people, lost in each other, "caught up" as the old folk say and they forgot about the consequences that always come when we sin. Trust me the consequences always come. But it is here that we all need to buckle up because it is here that we can find our character and our deepest calling in life. Affairs just don't happen folks. They start with deep self dissatisfaction, and deep longing. My guess is that the Sanford marriage was in trouble for sometime. It was just unspoken, I suspect. The good news is that now it is all on the table, and there is no place to hide. My hope is that this man and this woman can forgive, heal, and rediscover one another. My prayer is that four boys will see their dad as a man who made a serious mistake, but who had the character to admit it, and move forward a better man. I will end by saying that I think Gov. Sanford should not resign as Governor of South Carolina and he should not allow himself to be removed as a candidate for President in 2012. Who among us is without sin? It is time we started acting like a nation of grown up adults--Christians who understand what the Bible truly teaches us about failure and sin. My favorite biblical hero is David. And I admire David because he triumphed over great personal weakness and failures. We all know the great sin David committed with Bathsheba and we all know that God dealt with him and her severely at first--and we know that the "sword" never departed from David's house as a result of the sin. But, we never talk about what happened after that sin. One of the greatest Psalms; Psalm 51 was written after this failing--David became a better husband, father, servant and King because of his ability to move forward after inflicting great wounds on himself and his family. My point: Gov. Sanford, don't be a quitter. Don't let the modern day pharisees run you out of politics. You are a human being. You made a terrible mistake--haven't we all. You have confessed your wrong to your wife and it appears that she is willing to give you a "chance to reconcile" the marriage. She is the only person who matters in this other than your boys. I for one wish you well and I hope that you will use this failing to teach others how not to fail. And I hope that you will teach your sons and the rest of us what it is to be a man of humility, character and honor in the midst of great adversity & personal failing. More on Argentina
 
Lightning Bolt Tattoo: Who Got Struck? Top
One sort-of-famous starlet showed up at a NY event Wednesday night with her brand new lightning bolt tattoo out for show underneath her right arm. She got it on Sunday night, and the owner and the tattoo's symbolism are revealed in the slideshow below. PHOTOS: More on Photo Galleries
 
Nixon Tapes: Billy Graham Refers To 'Synagogue Of Satan' Top
A 1973 conversation between President Nixon and evangelist Billy Graham about Jews, laden with critical references including a Biblical verse on the "synagogue of Satan," has put the aging, frail Graham back in unwelcome headlines.
 
Jon Soltz, Phil Gingrey Debate Funding For New Line Of Fighter Jets, The F-22 Raptor (VIDEO) Top
Jon Soltz, Chairman of VoteVets.org and a frequent HuffPost blogger, faced off against Georgia Congressman Phil Gingrey (R) over funding for the extremely expensive new line of fighter jets, the F-22 Raptor, a line of jets that Defense Secretary Robert Gates thinks we should cease. Soltz argued that the funding going towards the F-22 line would be much better spent on replacing worn-out equipment for troops in Iraq, who have an immediate need for better armor, than funding a new line of fighter jets that's essentially unnecessary because no one threatens our air superiority in the first place. Schuster interjected that if we need these new jets so badly, how come we have yet to use a single one that has already been produced? Gingrey replied that the F-22 Raptor is absolutely necessary to maintain our dominance of the sky, and just because we haven't had to use them yet doesn't mean we don't need them. He cited our submarines and ballistic missiles as examples, but also included this rather odd and very personal analogy: I have a .44 Magnum that I keep under my pillow every night for the last 15 years. Everybody knows I've got and I haven't had to use it. It's the same thing with this F-22 Raptor. We hope the Congressman is a gentle sleeper. Watch the spirited debate below. Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy More on Video
 
Exclusive: MoveOn Targets DiFi On Healthcare In New Ad Top
Intensifying efforts to keep recalcitrant Democrats in line on health care, the progressive activist organization MoveOn.org is launching a new television ad calling on Sen. Diane Feinstein to stop "dragging her heels" and support "significant" reform. "California voters sent Senator Dianne Feinstein to Washington to fight for us," goes the script. "That includes fighting to pass President Obama's health care plan. A recent poll shows that 71% of California voters want a significant overhaul of the health care system now. But Feinstein has been dragging her heels, saying health care may just be too 'difficult.' News flash Senator: We don't expect you to lead just on the easy issues. Senator Feinstein, please: Fight for California. Fight for President Obama's health care reform now." The ad, which will be released on Friday and runs in Washington D.C., Los Angeles and San Francisco through the week, comes days after Feinstein expressed doubts about health care's passage during a segment on CNN. The California Democrat has, since then, come under assault from a variety of progressive-leaning health care and advocacy groups, many of which have long viewed her politics skeptically. As for MoveOn, the new ad also reflects a stepped up effort on its part in the health care debate. The vast majority of the group's five million members already likely support a progressive vision for health care reform. And they could play an important role in maintaining cohesion within Democratic ranks. Feinstein is an early target. But it wouldn't be surprising if there were others. WATCH :
 
Bill O'Reilly, Barney Frank Face Off On Detainee Abuse Photos, Health Care Reform, Housing Crisis (VIDEO) Top
Congressman Barney Frank and Bill O'Reilly squared off again on "The O'Reilly Factor" and discussed a wide range of issues, including President Obama's decision to not release photos showing the US torturing Guantanamo detainees, how to pay for the very large price tag of health care reform that would include a public plan, and their old favorite topic : who is to blame for the housing crisis and letting Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac become so bloated with bad subprime loans. I say discuss because this lengthy interview was remarkably more tempered than their previous exchange in which they faced off over the two housing giants, and by faced off I mean yelled at each other. Sure, O'Reilly interrupted Frank several times and the Congressman indignantly insisted that O'Reilly stop talking over him, but it was fairly civil, and thus far more substantive. The two even managed to agree on a couple things. For example, they both favor cutting parts of the military budget (Frank in order to pay for health care; it's unclear if O'Reilly supported it for that reason as well). Watch the (slightly) heated exchange below. Part 1 Part 2 More on Video
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)